Thursday, May 03, 2007

Tell me again about Europe and her pains,Who’s tortured by the drought, who by the rains.Glut me with floods where only the swine can rowWho cuts his throat and let him count his gains.It seemed the best thing to be up and go.

Over the last two years Gates of Vienna has gradually become more Eurocentric than would be expected of an average American blog. A certain well-known lefty blog — I won’t stoop to name or link it here — has referred to us as “the Eurotrash version of LGF”. And with good reason. Who could disagree?

The more I investigate the Great Jihad, the more important Europe seems. The United States military fights on the front lines of the “War on Terror”, but Europeans live on the front lines. What happens in Europe is crucial: if the USA follows Denmark’s example, we can expect to defeat the Jihad. If we use Sweden as a model, we can put our head between our legs right now and kiss our collective fundament goodbye.

In either case, what happens in Europe foreshadows the shape of things to come here in the USA.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

When I was in Copenhagen staying with Steen at his apartment, I had the privilege of sitting in on some extensive conversations with Fjordman. Most of the time it was just the three of us, but for a while late at night after the Counterjihad Summit, several other Danes were there, as well as Gaia, a British member of Vigilant Freedom. The group discussed a wide-ranging set of issues concerning Muslim immigration in Europe.

Fjordman and I agree that if Europe succumbs to the Jihad, then America won’t stand a chance — if they go down, we go down. We will last longer, but we will face the same fate. The European crisis stands before us to warn America of what is to come.

Our biggest problem isn’t that a crazed horde of mujahideen might have access to French nukes or British military hardware — although that most definitely is an issue for our national security. The real problem is that American political culture is not vastly different from its European counterpart. Their response to the Islamofascist crisis — dhimmitude, collapse, civil war, or a reawakened sense of national purpose — is likely to prefigure our own.

In Fjordman’s opinion, Sweden is more of a basket case than any other European country. Caught in a self-destructive spiral of immigration, high taxation, welfare spending, and denial, it faces a looming catastrophe.

“Paul Westonwrote on your blog that Europe will face a civil war by the year 2025,” he said, “but I think he underestimates how soon it will be. Within five to ten years at the most Swedish society will collapse. It can’t be avoided; the Swedish welfare state is simply unsustainable.

“But the civil war won’t start in Sweden. Sweden is too far gone. I think the civil war will appear first in Britain, which has the second-worst conditions. But the British still have a spirit of resistance.”

Gaia agreed vehemently. “People in Britain will eventually reach the breaking point,” she said. “Just beneath the surface people are really, really angry, and it will take just a little spark to set it off. The hostage situation in Iran only made it worse.”

The general discussion that followed reached a consensus on the outline of future events in the UK:

1.

The British government continues its suicidal policy of promoting Multiculturalism and cracking down on British “racists”.

2.

A precipitating incident by an immigrant or group of immigrants sparks violence, with mobs of angry Britons taking the law into their own hands.

3.

The riot police and possibly military troops are summoned by the government to quell the “racist hooligans.”

4.

At this point a true civil war has begun, with the Government and civil authorities, in tacit alliance with the Islamists, fighting native Britons.

5.

Elements of the police and the military are reluctant to fight against their own countrymen — with whom they are in broad agreement — and they defect to the “racist” side of the conflict.

6.

Next step…? Perhaps a full civil war?

Fjordman and Gaia both felt that Britain will eventually come through the bloody conflict, and finally give up its self-destructive policies, after paying a huge price.

Sweden, however is another matter entirely.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

- - - - - - - - - -While I was at Steen’s he showed me a recently-published book entitled Exit Folkhemssverige: en samhällsmodells sönderfall (Exit “The Swedish People’s Home”: A Model Community Disintegrates) by Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson, Jonathan Friedman, and Åke Wedin. It’s about the end of the “Swedish model” and the coming implosion of Sweden’s welfare state along with its historical social consensus.

Steen and Fjordman consider this an important book, and it's no surprise that it had trouble finding a publisher in Sweden. The authors supplied Steen with the text document of the entire book, and he has started a blog dedicated to its online publication, chapter by chapter. No English translation is available yet, however.

The ideal of Folkhemssverige has driven Swedish policy for more than sixty years, and the fact that it has become untenable is difficult for Swedes to accept. That, plus the stifling blanket of consensus that is an endemic part of Swedish culture, has made it virtually impossible to construct an alternative public policy, or even to discuss the possibility of one. The Swedish polity, chained to the anchor of the welfare state, is being dropped gagged and blindfolded into the multicultural lagoon.

No one I talked to, not even the Swedes, had much optimism for Sweden. But the Swedish delegates at the Counterjihad Summit were determined to do whatever they can to keep Fjordman’s dire predictions from coming true.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The European Union is a hybrid organization. It claims some of the attributes of a sovereign state, but on other issues allows its member states to exercise their customary sovereignty.

Borders, for example, are open within the EU. There may be checkpoints when crossing from one country to another, but at most inner EU borders, traffic flows freely.

Social welfare policies, on the other hand, are still under the control of the individual European states. As a result, Third World immigrants — many of whom subsist on state payments — tend to move to where the welfare programs are the most generous. The largest concentrations of Muslims are thus found in the big cities of Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, and Sweden. The country borders within the EU behave like permeable membranes between plant cells, with the osmotic pressure of welfare regulating the flow of rent-seekers from one country to another.

Since the Danish elections of 2001, when the current ruling party gained power, Denmark’s welfare policies for immigrants have remained strict and uninviting by European standards. Denmark has an immigrant population, but it is not growing, and Muslim immigrants from other parts of Europe do not find it an attractive destination.

Sweden, however, is at the opposite extreme. It stands as a shining beacon of opportunity for immigrants, supplying generous subsidies to newcomers and allowing for the addition of extended family members to immigrants already resident.

Since the border in South Jutland between Germany and Denmark is open and unpatrolled, immigrants simply walk across to Denmark from Germany and keep going. They cross the Øresund Bridge from Copenhagen to Sweden, take up residence in Malmö, and begin drawing their lavish state subsidies.

That’s an osmotic pressure causing a flow of people in one direction. But another flow works in the opposite direction — Swedes (or, rather, “persons of Swedish background”) are leaving Sweden for Denmark. Swedes who actually want to work for a living will find wages in Denmark that are on average 30% higher than those at home. Not only that, there is more to buy in Denmark, and at a lower price.

The Friday afternoon I was in Copenhagen, as we passed through the downtown area, Steen pointed out the crowds of people and said, “Those are all Swedes.” They come to Denmark to work, shop, and relax, and not all of them return to Sweden.

So the population dynamic in Sweden is a complex one, with the productive, law-abiding, and hard-working Swedes tending to move across the bridge, leaving behind the elderly and the layabouts — and the immigrants. It’s a vicious circle that is depleting Sweden of both its fiscal and human capital.

With productivity in severe decline, Sweden relies on increasing debt to maintain the system in its current form. According to Fjordman, Norway — which is flush with North Sea oil money — holds a lot of Swedish paper, but the load on Sweden will soon become unsustainable. The crunch will come; the bubble will burst, and the dream that was Folkhemssverige will be gone.

“When the Swedish welfare state collapses,” said Fjordman, “the immigrants who lose their payments will have to go somewhere. Denmark will probably be fairly successful at keeping them out. A lot of them will migrate to Norway, some will move to Germany and the Netherlands, and some will probably end up in Eastern Europe.”

I asked him what would become of Sweden.

“Sweden as we know it now will cease to exist. It’s hard to say what will take its place. It’s not a pleasant thing to contemplate.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So civil war comes first to Britain, and social collapse comes first to Sweden. What’s in store for the rest of Europe?

Fjordman sees different outcomes in different countries, depending on the policies of the individual governments. As civil unrest increases, it’s possible that ethnic homogeneity will increase along with it. Immigrants will concentrate in the major cities to form de facto Islamic states, while native Europeans take refuge in the smaller towns and countryside, and resist further immigration and Islamification.

“Europe may well become a patchwork of different kinds of states,” he said, “with Sharia installed in places like Rotterdam and Hamburg, and more rural areas maintaining the traditional culture.”

But when the welfare spigot is turned off, expect the conflict to intensify and become more brutal. Cities teeming with large immigrant groups — whose families may lose their customary means of support — could become predators on the surrounding areas.

“I expect that in thirty or forty years, much of Europe will become something that would be currently unrecognizable.”

I noted that many people who are my age or older are saying things like, “Boy, I’m glad I won’t be around to see all this happen.” But Fjordman — assuming that a fatwa doesn’t find him first — will live to see these changes. That’s why he’s so determined to get the word out.

“It will happen in my time,” he said.

Dymphna has called Fjordman “the Dark Prophet of Norway”, and with good reason. But, despite all the gloomy forecasts, he holds out a kind of guarded optimism. Not all of Europe is doomed.

“Some European countries are starting to wake up and resist,” he said. “Not all of them will resist successfully — parts of Europe will inevitably become Islamic — but some will be successful. That’s where I disagree with Mark Steyn.

“Those countries that rediscover the value of the nation state as the natural source of democracy will develop a healthy political culture. That’s what I hope to live to see.”

Update: Fjordman has asked me to add this:

I would still not say that is inevitable that some parts of Europe will go Islamic, even Sweden or Holland, but the likelihood is certainly considerable. The reason why I like to draw up different scenarios in some of my posts is to remind myself and others that the future is not yet written. Fatalism is an Islamic trait, not a Western one. To be Western means upholding the belief that individuals, including yourself, can affect and change the future. We should not resign to defeatism, especially while we still have a chance to change the course of history. If we don’t do anything, then yes, this will be the end result. All the more reason to work hard on anti-Jihad activities.

44
comments:

Baron, I know it's old news, but have been watching "V fro Vendetta" the last few weeks. The more I watch it the more I see not anarchy but the local populace taking a stand against the High Chancellor and company. What surprised me is the military standing down and not killing the protesters.

It would be shame to ban this and that. Outlaw the Koran, homosexuality and a few of the other things that the British controllers did. Don't want that here but just where is that line we should just pull up short of?

The European countries for the most part have surrender their sovereignty already to the EU, a true NGO with the powers of a demi-god.

Baron, your argument assumes a somewhat passive approach on the part of the reactive forces of Europe to the territorial loses of the their former homelands. As the brutality increases, and given the bloodthirsty barbarism of the average jihadi, that is a given, then the anger of the indigenous populations will cause a firestorm the like of which I doubt any of us here can as yet imagine. Bosnia in the 90s will be a mere foretaste of what's to come. That resultant rage will sweep all political considerations aside, and the Multi-cultis will simply evaporate into the ether, if only to avoid the inevitable and just retribution. It will also expose the ruling orthodoxy for the shallow depth it really has on the prevailing philosophy of those societies so affected.

Yes I do see things panning out as you and Fjordman envisage. The ruling elites will indeed wage war upon their own societies, they are too blinded by the own self-righteous nostrums and pieties to do anything else; but there is a dark lining in this scenario, for it ends with them being so discredited in the eyes of their respective populations, that their position will quickly become untenable, for as you say, they will inevitably lose the support of the military and the vast majority of the police forces, those very institutions they rely on to enforce their dictums and do their bidding . Their remit will evaporate overnight. Once their voices are removed from the chambers of debate, a unity of purpose will soon emerge, events will force it to. Then God help any who have been found to have taken the Islamic silver, for betrayal is never easily forgiven, and betrayal on this scale and with such catastrophic consequences is likely to be paid back in the only coin which will have currency under such brutal conditions.

While many Europeans are still in denial as to the looming future that fate has in store for them, events will overtake them forcing a rapid re-evaluation of their own positions, the finger pointing game will soon end, if only due to mere survival, as everyone will be forced to take sides. The Islamic radicals are no respecters of nuance, equal opportunity head choppers to the end. They may make common cause with useful idiots when opportunity presents, but they can never contain their bloodlust for long, especially when the blood starts to flow in quantity.

What we are about to witness is the birth of a complete new polity in Europe, born in blood and fashioned in fire. The passivity is about to end, the anger simmering just below the surface is too enraged to be pacified now, it just awaits a spark to ignite the flame, and the furnace will be set. Our elites believe what they want to believe, they cannot help this as they are blinded by their own lies, so they do not see the danger, they believe that they can brow beat their respective populations into meek acquiescence, it is in the nature of the powerful, to be blind to their own limitations.

Just who will come to the rescue of the Muslims of Europe this time, can you see America bombing Britain, not this time, no administration would survive the resultant firestorm of public opinion, Russia, what's in it for them, and also, why risk getting embroiled in a conflict with America, for that would be a possibility. No, the only hope for the Muslims would be the Nutjobinawell of Iran, and his only means of power projection will be suicide bombers, something most likely to enrage the local populations, not cower them, terror only works so long as the threshold of angry retribution is not breached, for then it becomes a lightening rod attracting more resolve. I don't see the Mullahs lobbing nukes around, they may be fanatical, but despite all rhetoric to the contrary, they are NOT suicidal, they like being in power far too much to want to die, that's for others to do, so no nukes.

Not a happy prognosis, but one most likely, due to the foolish ministrations of empty headed political vacuities, and their greed and ambition. We have for too long allowed fools and charlatans to rule over us, and now we must pay the price.

I don't know about Europe, but the one part of your post I can guarantee is wrong is that any of this affects the United States much.

If Europe falls into civil war with Islamists, this war won't be America's business. Europeans will take care of it themselves or not at all. They REALLY don't want our help, and we REALLY have no interest in offering any.

The worse scenario for Europe is that the historical pattern holds that in any city, state or country where there's getting to be a majority of Muslims it is fairly likely that there will be an Islamist insurrection just like southern Thailand.

It's explicitly part of the religion that wherever Muslims feel strong and safe they will attempt to take over and impose their inferior system of theocratic thuggery. So it's fairly likely to happen again.

If we're VERY lucky, the freedom of Europe will create a new sort of Islam where Muslims are a uninterested in Jihad and European nominal Christians are in celebacy.

It's really the same thing in a way. Peace is considered a sin in Islam but most Muslims prefer peace - this is absolutely analgous to the fact that fornication is a sin in Christianity, but Christians want sex.

Anyway, the only important way a European civil war with Islam would affect America is that we will look at Europe, realize that we don't want a majority Muslims anywhere, run the numbers, and then shut down immigration enough to insure that, in the near future, we won't have the same problem on any scale.

Muslims won't try much thuggery or war when they don't feel that it's safe, and it's a pretty good bet that American Muslims won't feel that safe.

And Europe's economy will suffer but that's hardly as serious as a war.

On a side note, notice the difference between the proposed European constitution and the American one? The American constition is five pages long including signatures.The bill of rights is one more page, and then there's a few amendments that came afterwards and that's it!

The EU one, on the other hand is as thick as a fucking phone book. Instead of establishing democracy, it specifies most important policies down to minute details.

I've always suspected the reason for this is that the European elite is perfectly aware that Islam dooms Europe's democracy and so, in order to preserve Europe's way of life and economy, they're trying to freeze every aspect of government in a constitution where the Muslims won't be able to ruin it once they take over.

I could be wrong. One wonders why they wouldn't just prioritize democracy over immigration instead, but another interpretation is that they never cared for democracy much in the first place and are happy to let it go no matter what the reason.

I should add to my above comment, that I think the initial victories will go to the forces of Islam and their Western enablers, though those victories will blind them to the realities of the rising storm, such that their consequent actions will engender an unquenchable rage in the indigenous populations.

The real question becomes - just how long can the ruling elite keep the lid on this pressure cooker? And, more to the point, at what pressure point the lid blows, which will determine what portion of the power structure gets torn down straight away.

Baron, thanks for a great post. I will blog about it tomorrow on The Islamic Threat I had to leave a quick comment though.

I agree that part of the reason is the welfare state and socialism in government. The bigger problems of Europe though is its total abandonment of its Christian spiritual roots. Abandonment of Christianity by Europeans lead to a spiritual vacuum that Islam moved into. While European governments were eradicating Christianity they allowed Islam to prosper unhindered under the banner of multiculturalism.

I believe personally that the strongest blow to Islam in Europe and America would be to start teaching the Bible or Christian oriented literature and values at schools.

Richard: That has occurred to me too, that eventually Islamic supremacists in the West will overplay their hand and, in doing so, jump the proverbial shark.

Anyway, here's something I've always wondered: Under shari'a law, at what point does a territory go from Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam? Are there any countries in Europe that are on the verge of this today (aside from Spain, which of course turned that corner centuries ago)?

This is significant because under shari'a, once any nation enters the Dar al-Islam it remains rightful Muslim domain forever. The implications of this happening to another European country would be numerous and obviously staggering - and it may well become Europe's Fort Sumter moment of which Fjordman et al have spoken.

Five years from now I will remind Fjordman that he said so. I assume that he will get red in his face and try to claim that he only meant it symbolically :-)

Sweden tops the list in several aspects, but this is not a truthful description. It's far more complex.

In spite of many people wanting Sweden to be the most progressed basket case--because they morally consider that Sweden deserves to be so--it is not. France and Holland are clearly more down the drain, and I'm not even sure that Sweden would make number three on the list.

I agree the Sweden is a really annoying country, but that does not translate into your dreams come true about it being the worst basket case and will collapse first. Bruce Bawer wrote recently that Sweden has 10% Muslims. I guess it feels so to him. And that's why he's got the urge to air it. But no matter how strongly Bruce Bawer feels so, it's still not true. And no matter how strongly Fjordman or Baron Bodissey feel that Sweden will collapse in 5-10 years, it won't do so. No matter how much you think that Sweden deserves to be the first country to go down (an emotion I can share many times).

The story told by Fjordman here is a saga based on his moral senses, instead of on reality. Based on how things should be, according to the narrative he wants to tell. Thereby, the collapse will take place already 5-10 years from now (and it will happen first in Sweden). I agree that the situation is very urgent. But this just doesn't translate into any collapse happening any time soon. Things can be urgent today, even if the big catastrophe won't happen until two decades from now. But the human mind has difficulty to grasp this, and will therefore tweak the story to also make sense emotionally.

This I believe is the result the neo-marxists have been working toward all these years with PC and multiculturalism - for ferment the collapse of Western societies with the aim of 'taking over' and rebuilding society in their own image. Islam is one of the methods they promote to aid this task, however what they fail to take into account is that when Islam has finished with the Jews and the Christians, they will be next.

Reading these comments I think Conservative Swede has got it nailed. Europe may be heading toward trouble eventually, but I don't think the people in this thread have a realistic view of exactly how or when that can happen. Or the fact that it might not get so bad.

Certainly it's been irresponsible for Europe to take the risks it's taking. But it's also wrong to borrow trouble too quickly.

I don't quite agree with your version of this conversation, Baron. Maybe I'm a "Dark" writer, but almost all the scenarios you describe here are darker than I would normally present them. I don't think there's any country in Western Europe that is beyond hope, although France definitely is in a tight spot. I cannot remember that I presented such a gloomy outlook, but if I did, I must have had too much coffee that morning, or too little. I'll drink tea or beer next time. If I sound that pessimistic I should start handing out prozacs to anybody meeting me :-)

Conservative Swede said: Five years from now I will remind Fjordman that he said so. I assume that he will get red in his face and try to claim that he only meant it symbolically :-)

If we talk about the Swedish welfare state then yes, it is not unrealistic to talk about severe troubles a decade from now. And I'm not the only one saying that, you know. It simply isn't sustainable in its present form. It will have to reform or it will eventually break down under the weight of immigration. But that doesn't have to be bad in the long run, it will just be painful for a while. If the current government cuts back significantly on state programs, this could change, but I'm not sure how much they will do.

Yes, France, Holland and Britain are worse than Sweden, which is why I would expect one of these countries, probably Britain for a variety of reasons, to hit serious turbulence first.

Sweden is indeed crazy, but I have probably picked on Sweden enough for a while. Hell, it was Norway that recognized the Hamas government. Malmø is a special case, but I'm not sure the Oslo region is that much better than Stockholm, and it's certainly worse than Copenhagen.

Josh Scholar: I do think it would affect you culturally, especially now that you're increasingly a post-Western nation anyway. It could conceivably wake Americans up to what's at stake, but so far I haven't seen you perform much better against Muslims at home than we do. Oh, and believing in a "new sort of Islam" is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Things in Europe could get rather bad, but they don't have to. If we act as soon as possible, we could still limit the damage and resolve this in relatively civilized ways.

This I posted to Weston's text, yet the same post also rings relevant here - to complement the fjordman, no less :)

"I for one would like to point out that Europe has for the past millennia (and the past century), quite adequately demonstrated its capacity for (organized) violence. Impassively analyzed, it took combined forces of US, USSR and almost all European countries to quell the European civil war, (WWII), that is, to defeat a single European nation (i.e. Germany), whose creative energies were harnessed to wage war 'contra omnes'.

Which is why there is no doubt that Europe will survive the worst, but the question is, what will become of it - as Bruce Bawer puts it, 'the pendulum may swing too far to the right'... so, it is better to act now, while there is (I hope) still a chance that by curbing immigration, welfare reform, unrestrained free speech, unwavering defiance to the dhimmitude, etc. etc., the situation may be resolved without all-out war."

I'd be very interested to see something written on why Britain is most likely to hit serious turbulence first. From this side of the waters, things are looking very bad, with any sense of patriotism and love of one's own being made into the blackest thought-crime of all.

And when V for Vendetta, probably the greatest anti-British/Engligh propaganda piece of recent times, is seen approvingly as local, ordinary people taking a stand against an oppressive tyrrany, it doesn't inspire confidence.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope the patience of the British will turn to fury, and that soon. I just don't see much evidence to suggest it.

On my walk home from the station every day I pass through a memorial for the dead from my town, a little set of walls at one end of Portland Bridge, with names inscribed on them. There's a memorial garden. A Union flag flies every day. Last week I walked through the garden, looked at the names and then looked up at the flag and felt shame at what was happening to my country. Everything that those men died for has been debased and squandered by my generation and the generation before mine. Everything that flag stood for is gone, or so nearly gone as makes no difference. For that moment I felt there was nothing beyond those walls to be proud of.

I believe so many would-be patriots are refusing to stand up simply because they don't see anything worth defending, and at the moment I can't blame them for thinking that way. We are a nation ashamed of itself.

The thing about shame is that it eventually leads to a kind of anger. Our reaction is being suppressed by our shame but that is simply a delay. Sooner or later we'll be reminded of what that flag stands for, and of what those people died for, and we'll stand up for ourselves again.

Anyway, here's something I've always wondered: Under shari'a law, at what point does a territory go from Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam? - Joshua

I think that threshold maybe much lower than many realize. Simply by forming their own localized communities wherever they can congregate in numbers, Muslims assume a right of possession. Just look at the Islamic associations in Britain, their names alone, let alone the consistent focus of their advocacy, tells an alert mind that they believe themselves secure and inviolet. It must be admitted, a very bold position to take whilst their numbers are still relatively small, but so far it has payed off handsomely for them. The question is, is this due to Western political cravenness or to neo-marxist latent designs. So I would hazard a guess that much of Europe is, in the minds of Islamic fundamentalists, now considered Dar al-Islam, so we have a fight on our hands whether we realize it or not, that is if we wish to preserve our freedoms.

The one event which will bring everything to a head, is when the strain upon the European social safety net finally bursts and social welfare becomes untenable. Then the indigenous populations shall awake in a cantankerous mood, lashing out at all and everyone. The kindest thing America could do for Europe right now, would be to withdraw the protective arm of her military might from the European arena, forcing the Europeans to fend for themselves, bringing them face to face with the real consequences of the high opinions they hold of themselves.

The sooner these issues are addressed, the less destruction civilized society will have to endure, the longer this irresolution continues, the greater desolation Europe will have to undergo.

Josh Scholar said...

Reading these comments I think Conservative Swede has got it nailed. Europe may be heading toward trouble eventually, but I don't think the people in this thread have a realistic view of exactly how or when that can happen. Or the fact that it might not get so bad.

So who's the knight in shinning armour about to ride to the rescue and resolve this mess before civil war breaks out Josh. Sorry to be so terse, but Certainly it's been irresponsible for Europe to take the risks it's taking. But it's also wrong to borrow trouble too quickly. We are not looking for trouble, trouble has found us. To assume that things will turn out well in the end is to ignore history, to bypass Islamic aspirations, (clearly and unambiguously stated by the Islamic radicals over the past 30 years), and to place all your faith in the power of faith, the faith that, if we just believe strongly enough, then that is the reality we will bring about. The passive approach is a non starter in this case, for it is passivity which has brought us to this pass. Where you may be right is in that the majority are not yet ready for the brutal truth, but that truth will eventually smack them in the face, painfully so. So regard us as Cassandras if you will, but our numbers are growing, and our voices will not be stilled.

fjordman3 said...

I don't quite agree with your version of this conversation, Baron. Maybe I'm a "Dark" writer, but almost all the scenarios you describe here are darker than I would normally present them.

I cannot speak for the Baron but the reason I see such a dark and foreboding future is that Europeans, like people in general, are indolent by nature, and tend to put off unpleasant tasks until they become unavoidable, by which time the means necessary to resolve those issues, become much more grave and difficult. Yes, if concerted action was taken by Europe's political elites tomorrow to bring resolution to this looming crisis, then you may be correct, this whole mess could be dealt with without conflict, but we all know that our political elites will not take the necessary action, and so the inevitable conflict lumbers on towards us, and once that dam bursts, who knows how bloody and destructive the conflict will become; a series of little skirmishes or a full blown raging inferno.

Archonix, I think you make an excellent point, but I wonder if perhaps you're understating the problem. You will probably be aware of the little English schoolgirl whose comment that she comes from 'nowhere' was raised high as a warning flag of a potential British backlash to multiculturalism, but it might be worth my underlining it. People of her generation, and of mine, not only currently 'don't see anything worth defending', but are products of an ongoing, structured agenda of the destruction of the nation. An efficient agenda, I might add. You say we are a nation ashamed of itself, perhaps that's true for certain age groups, but for us younger lot, we're being told constantly and from all sides that we're not a nation. That 'Briton' applies as a term to anybody of any lineage or belief who happens to have been born on these soils or has been here long enough (or lucratively enough) to get a passport. That most English people aren't English. And so on and so on.

We're seeing nothing less than the erosion of Self on a national level, and it's all the more dangerous for that. Since it's not a massive and powerful movement like Mao's cultural revolution, it's harder to trace, harder to see, and harder to stop. Attempts to reverse the trend will be met by propaganda efforts like V for Vendetta which had a lot of money and very prominent names behind it, and which tar all patriotism in Europe with the same brush.

You say we're ashamed of ourselves? I say we're being brainwashed into forgetting we are ourselves. You say we've forgotten who we were, that some day we'll be reminded? I say our memories, as a nation, of what and who we were are being stolen, and that we won't be reminded unless someone reminds us.

And the most perverse thing? That reminder will probably have to use the same diabolical tools that our enemies have used if it's to have any effect at all on whose who don't already feel the fury that our dead have been betrayed.

Oh, and to Josh Scholar, you might be a little off with Euro desire for US help. With most weapons banned in Euro states, how will a Euro backlash survive without armaments from overseas?

Now I recognize you again. I found the previous description rather strange.

Sweden is indeed crazy, yes. The current rate of mass immigration is highest of all in Sweden. So we win that crazy game. But Muslim mass immigration has only been going on here for 2 decades, while in France, Holland, Great Britain it has been going on for 4 decades. Also in Denmark it has been going on much longer, before it stopped. Furthermore, while the typical Muslim in Norway is a Pakistani, or in Denmark a Turk or Palestinian, in Sweden the typical Muslim is a Bosnian or Iranian. If we do not bring this into the picture we will never be able to assess what's going to happen in Sweden, and the predictions will only be whimsy and rather emotional.

Regarding the Swedish welfare state. Yes, we do borrow money. But so do many other Western nations, some more some less. Whenever I look for hard figures I never find that Sweden is worse off and closer to an economic collapse of the state. If you have hard data to support your claim I would love to see it. Even if we think that Sweden ought to be worst off, by having the highest immigration rate and the highest taxes, we actually have to show that it is so with hard data. If its actually such an urgent basket case, it would show in the data.

Anyway, regardless of whether the Swedish welfare state system goes down first or not, it's is bound to go down, of course. Just as most of Western Europe. But it's rather an open question how this will come about. I just do not think that this will happen in any dramatic kind of way. A silent adaption under consensus--that's the Swedish way.

What will make things dramatic are street wars and civil war. And this is likely to happen first e.g. in the UK (definitely not in Sweden). Once things has gone as far, it will spread to more countries. It won't take long until several countries adapt a stop and reverse Muslim/third-world immigration policy. The Muslims will leave these countries en masse to new countries. There will still be countries standing there with open arms to the Muslims. Because they are unable to do otherwise, France, or because they are to stupid to do otherwise, Sweden. This is the first step towards the new European chessboard (tigerkaka), and I expect this to be the starting point for things to go really bad in Sweden.

So when will the wildfire of civil wars get started around Western Europe? As I wrote before: it's actually already here. And from this it will increase slowly, slowly. So when will it get really hot? Hard to say. Anything between 1-20 years. But I think we should be prepared to wait about a decade.

I may have overemphasized the "darker side" of the conversation, and mixed up some of what others said with what you said -- my memory is not good enough to separate out all the strands completely.

But I'm certain that I recall some of your salient points correctly, particularly the 5-10 year window for the collapse of the Swedish welfare state.

What I should have done better was to highlight the things you were (are) optimistic about. The problem is that the ominous scenarios stayed in my mind more clearly then the reassuring ones! Which I guess is just human nature.

But, everybody: as I said in the last few paragraphs (and as he emphasized in his addendum), Fjordman is optimistic, despite all the gloomy forecasts. The fact that he and others are shining flashlights down the road and revealing the pits ahead of us is a sign that people are waking up, and that things can change.

I was particularly heartened by all the young people I met in Copenhagen, from five different countries, who were dedicated enough to the counterjihad to be at the summit.

These are intelligent people on whom the indoctrination has simply not worked, and they are a good reason for hope.

I'm glad I've not completely lost it, that's reassuring. However, this does bring us to a worrying point.

Given that we can see clearly the problem, many of the perpetrators and the main forces at work, and the death our nations and our peoples (speaking for all Europe, rather than just Britain) face if current trends continue unchecked, we have, perhaps, reached a point at which the talk has reached its culmination.

Faced with the reality of the enemy and their plans an intents for us, and having reached the logical conclusion of the dialogue amongst ourselves that the situation is intolerable (even for such tolerant people as ourselves) the logical next step, I think, is that Something Must Be Done.

The questions then become What? How? By Whom? And most of all How Can The Effort Succeed? Whatever happens, this is too important to be allowed to simply sink into obscurity and good intentions, or to be allowed to be defeated by quislings in 'Proper Authority'.

Is it perhaps time to change the nature of the dialogue? Or even to go beyond the dialogue to actions?

I would love to know what regular GoV readers and writers think on this, I just hope they're still reading this thread.

(Additionally, whatever happens, Europe's Jews mustn't be forgotten in all this, as that could too easily lead to their being left in the hands of the moslems or neo-nazis and we none of us want that to happen. Never again.)

Of course, of course. No-one's calling for an instigation of violent action, certainly, and I wouldn't want Vigilant Freedom to lose chances of being taken seriously by actions like that. (My comment about armaments, though they could be seen in that light, were relating to a potential civil war in Europe. Not something anybody wants, of course, but should it happen, I doubt it could be won without outside help. Perhaps I should have phrased things better.)

No, my ideas about action going on from the dialogue are that actions will have to be primarily on ideological ground. We can blog until our fingers fall off, but until the prevailing attitude of most people is changed, I doubt it will avail us anything. A change of attitude and typical (lawful) behaviours should do it, if achieved across a large enough scale.

I was struck by the similarity of America's situation to Sweden's. Over the last 40 years, we Americans have exported factories rather than manufactured goods. We run massive trade deficits. We're afflicted by a swarm of illegal aliens. We're about to see huge runs on a couple of Ponzi schemes that the government has been running (Social Security and Medicare). We're deep in debt.

Since 1971 we've had a fiat currency. (I call it Monopoly money.) Sooner or later, the dollar must suffer a severe devaluation. When that happens, our violent non-white underclass will burn all of our cities to the ground. They've demonstrated their capacity for that sort of violence on numerous occasions.

The upshot of all this is that Europeans should not expect any help from America. We'll be living in our own dark age.

Here's a quote from the original post: 'Immigrants will concentrate in the major cities to form de facto Islamic states, while native Europeans take refuge in the smaller towns and countryside, and resist further immigration and Islamification.

“Europe may well become a patchwork of different kinds of states,” he said, “with Sharia installed in places like Rotterdam and Hamburg, and more rural areas maintaining the traditional culture.”'

A couple thoughts come to mind: First off, a best case scenario here would be that this turns into "White Flight" writ large. The cities turn into hell-holes of rubble and crime. (Like my own hometown of Detroit, a place I try not to get near anymore). But people keep trying, and sometimes are able to gradually move back in and take parts of the city back. of course, if the city is Dar-al-Islam, that becomes a bit tougher, to say the least.

The other thought- the first one that came to mind when I read the Post is that this "checkerboard" of City-states will be incredibly ugly. The scenario that comes to my mind is Germany in the 17-18th centuries. Lots of small, independent kingdoms, duchies, etc.

If this happens, then we'll see almost total anarchy. Some entities will have to be neutral, or even get forced into alliance with the Muslim areas around them. They'll be forced to try and play both sides. Think Wallachia under Dracula (the historical version, not Stoker's) and his father/grandfather. Nominally loyal to their own people and their "culture"- Christianity- but forced to submit to Islam in order to survive. And of course, switching sides to keep themselves intact.

Those 2 scenarios, Germany and Wallachia, as any student of history can explain, both lead to a lot of blood and fire.

********As to Sweden, I have no clue. However, I would point out that what I read here suggests that the welfare system is closing in on collapse. Once that happens, though, what next? If people have no money, no jobs, and no security, then has the State not collapsed as well? Once people are unemployed, hungry and broke, then anarchy comes. You'll probably see mobs in the streets. Think Germany between the wars, where the Nazis started out as one mob, brawling against the Communists and others. Perhaps that has a lesson for Sweden as well?*******I agree with those that think France has a good chance of going first. After all, there seem to already be places that are completely Muslim. And the folks living there under de facto Sharia will keep reproducing and bringing in their families from Wherever. And their little enclaves will grow, which will be made easier by the non-Muslims fleeing- who wants to live next to that kind of place? Again, "White Flight", which leads to abandoned buildings, crime, and the Muslims moving in.

I have a hard time believing anyplace can be worse than France seems to be.

The culture of America, Europe, and Israel are similar given the vast differences around the world. Each is at a different stage of degeneration. The awakening will be slow and take slightly different forms in each country.

France, Holland, Sweden, and the UK will have to face the problem first. When they do, let's give them our moral support. During the initial reporting of the Intifada in France, some fellow conservatives weren't prepared to support the French. I wrote about it here. Let's be better prepared next time.

When I was reading about the Swedes who sought work in Denmark, I thought back to England in the 1960s when, in the heyday of the welfare state, the British government was complaining about the "Brain Drain" -- i.e. educated people moving to America to work. England has reversed its course. Indeed, Thatcher was elected Prime Minster before Reagan was elected President.

We can take nothing for granted. We have it in our power to succeed and fail. We must fight!

One more point that I wanted to make in my comment, but forgot: Remember that most cities grow up where they are for a reason. For instance, New Orleans, while it's a dump and was almost destroyed by Katrina, *has* to exist, and has to exist there. Geography demands a large port city at the mouth of the Mississippi. I suspect many of the larger cities in Europe have the same kind of history. They are ports, or road junctions, whatever. The infrastructure runs through these places.

What happens if these places are under Islamic control? The smaller towns and rural areas around them (the ones where the Euros have moved to) lack infrastructure, and will still rely on the cities for consumption, transport, etc.

To take my New Orleans example, suppose Islam took over. What then? The entire heartland of the US-from the Appalachians to the Rockies- relies on that one City to ship their goods out of the Country. It's a choke point. So the Muslims, controlling that, control the economy of everyone around them. If they also controlled, for instance, Seattle and San Francisco, then the US economy would be largely under their thumb. Toss in New York, Miami, Tampa, Quebec, Vancouver, and Boston, and they're in complete control of North America.

I also was struck by the similarity of America's situation to that of Sweden and Europe. While our Muslim problem seems insignificant, forces are at work that will escalate in the near future. One of which is H.R. 1592, the "Thought-Crimes" bill that is coming up for a vote.

Gates of Vienna has commented on the local Islamic group that seems to have a "community apart", with branches in various parts of the United States.

CAIR and Saudi Arabia give Muslims more clout in Washington and in academia than their 2-3% footprint in the population of the United States should warrant.

However, there is another dark movement: the importation of third-world poverty and ignorance over the southern border which will have deleterious effect long before Muslims reach sufficient numbers to create havoc in the United States. However, the effect of this migration will weaken us, perhaps allowing the small Muslim vanguard to make a move.

Europeans are capable to great rage, and so are Americans. And when either or both realize the perfidy of their ruling classes, the world will be bathed in blood, and perhaps, radiation, a horrific scenario.

An interesting scenario, especially as to Britain. I know next to nothing about Sweden

One cautionary note I would add is that the Islamic pot is not the only kettle on the stove. Lots of other things are happening also. (1) the resurgence of "English" nationalism and patriotism in reaction to; (2) the Scots Independence movement, as well as the Islamic penetration; (3) the return of Russia to the great power game (fueled by oil money); (4) the retreat of the US from the middle east, (not only Iraq but Afghanistan also); (5) relative decline of American military power; (6) the question of what China will do after the Olympics as regards Taiwan; (7) the return of Japan as a great power; and (8) Iran.

To put it mildly, all of this will affect the situation in both Britain and the EU, to say nothing of here.

I'm sorry if I have been a kill-joy for all the people who think that Sweden morally deserves to collapse first. So I decided to post this to make you in a better mood: don't think in terms of falling first, but falling hardest. Sweden is the country that is most in denial. Sweden is the country that has its identity invested in a political idea--the Swedish Model--which is bound to crumble (well, France and America are the two other modern model countries, but now I write about Sweden). So the higher they are, the harder they fall. But will it be dramatic, or the usual silent adaption in consensus? Rather hard so say. Will the fall be so hard that Sweden is bent out of character? I wouldn't assume so, just like that. It's very likely that the Swedes will just carry on as hard-working protestants, taking the pain on the inside with a stone face, turning 180 degrees, once again trying to be "best in class" but under the new paradigm.

What is absolutely clear though is that Sweden is the Western European country that is about to lose more of its current identity than any other country. For example we never ever been invaded before in history, ever.

America is also a model country, so it will also fall from a very high position, when the fall comes. But we have to wait yet another while for that. France, the third model country, is eaten from within. I'm not sure it's even considered a model country anymore, by anyone but themselves.

The topic of Sweden and its fall, quite as the topic of America, is highly interesting, and I should blog more about it.

It's going to be a toss up between France (if Segolene wins) and Britain (with the most vocal radical Islamists)if she doesn't.

Someone mentioned Bosnia as a foretaste... the difference between the jihadists and the Bosnian muslims, was that the Bosnian Muslims in the 90s, and prior to, were more cultural and secular than ultra religious. You can rest assured had they been religious they would have fought back and won against the Serbs.

Always interesting to read Fjordman. But don't miss two obvious examples in front of your eyes - Israel and Lebanon. For half a century they have been existing in exactly same conditions as those predicted by Fjordman for Europe. in Israel, which is tough on muslims, there is no civil war, but there is a permanent unrest. In Lebanon - permanent concessions for muslims, wars and unbearable situation. Just like Fjordman's Britain and Sweden.

Re the British 'brain drain': yes Thatcher reversed that... but Blair has reversed it again, with emigration from Britain reaching record levels in recent years.

Almost every friend who has a high-paid job and useful skills is looking at emigrating from Britain, waiting for their visa, or has already gone, and I'll be off across the Atlantic myself in a couple of months. I'd add that includes skilled and integrated Muslim friends who have no more desire to stay here than I do; many saw the writing on the wall with the London bombings and I'd hate to see them getting hurt in a backlash against Muslim extremists.

Someone mentioned that one reason people aren't willing to fight for Britain is because it doesn't exist anymore, and I'd agree with that; the Britain of 2007 bears little resemblance to the country where I grew up, and almost anything a Briton of 1907 might recognize here has been destroyed by a few decades of 'progressive' policies which deliberately set out to do exactly that. Britons fifty years ago were happy to fight for King and Country -- as I would have been myself -- but few people today are going to fight for Tony Blair and the EU.

It's no wonder to me that so many would rather abandon the country to its fate in the hope of building something better elsewhere than stay and face generations of work to rebuild what we had not so long ago. I honestly think the wreckers are far too entrenched in every institution in the country for anyone to turn them around through democratic means in less than a couple of generations; even Thatcher's attempts to do so were wiped out in a few years of Blair's government.

So, as I see it, the future for Britain is either Islamic rule or civil war, with the latter more likely. Since I don't fancy either of those options, I'd rather make a stand in a country that still has more options; as mentioned above, while an Islamic Europe would certainly bode poorly for America, don't underestimate the benefits of having a wide ocean on each side. If America and Canada close their doors to Muslim extremists, they're not going to be walking or paddling rafts across the Atlantic (on the other hand, they might fly to Mexico and walk across the border).

Josh Scholar: "America has an unfair advantage, big oceans between us and the old world, so we have time."

Good point. Also, instead of Muslims you have Mexicans. Quite as I described how Sweden has got more benign Muslims in form of Iranians and Bosnians, which will delay the effect. But a delayed effect is not necessarily something good.

The fact that America is dealing with Mexicans rather than Muslims will probably only lead to that America will fall deeper into the shit before turning around. Also, it will mean an impediment to find the moral motivation to reverse the effect of the mass immigration, and southern United States is therefore likely to be permanented as a part of Latin America. In the case of Europe this option will not exists. It's: get rid of the Muslims or die!

The big oceans is probably also the reason why America is so completely naive about an aggressive neighbour --Mexico--in a way that I find it hard that a European country would be (in spite of all their current wishy-wash).

" Joshua said...Anyway, here's something I've always wondered: Under shari'a law, at what point does a territory go from Dar al-Harb to Dar al-Islam? Are there any countries in Europe that are on the verge of this today (aside from Spain, which of course turned that corner centuries ago)?

This is significant because under shari'a, once any nation enters the Dar al-Islam it remains rightful Muslim domain forever. The implications of this happening to another European country would be numerous and obviously staggering - and it may well become Europe's Fort Sumter moment of which Fjordman et al have spoken. "

To answer your question, here's how Islamic expansionism works:

Groups immigrate to new areas which were not previously islamic and set up their life. Once a few have established themselves, more come and the network increases. At a certain point in size, the islamic community begins living as if they are a 'state within a state'. The state within a state continues indefinitely with the islamists increasingly gaining power and the community increasingly avoiding the larger state.

The point when it becomes dar islam is when the islamic state is larger than the original state, and it exerts more political authority.

I swear, this blog is painful to read. Like fjordman, I'm young enough to witness the complete destruction of Western civilization if we don't do something about it. As a European woman, I want to stay here, even though I'm considering moving to Singapore or a place like this... I'd have no problem in staying here, learn how to shoot and do something about it. I mean, staying here and having children would just put this fight on them. I don't believe that life is so dear and I'm not willing to purchase it at the price of chains and slavery.

The US is doomed too due to the 1965 immigration act. And Islam isn't the only threat. Mexicans are just as anti-White as a lot of the Blacks are. It's sad that the civil rights movement failed. Their purpose was to give Blacks a chance at integrating into the US society, but just years later, they rejected the same society they wanted to be part of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8How actual is this speech? 45 years ago... I noticed something interesting. For example, I'm Eastern European and I know for something that multiculturalism would be widely rejected here. It's similar in all the former Communist places because even though we had economic Marxism, due to that we were sheltered from the cultural one.

http://muslimpoxwatch.blogspot.com/when the twin towers fell...that was the exact time that islam started sliding to extinction...... fear not ...we'll all go thru bad times in the near future because of islam but islam will be wiped out in about 30 years .... iran will fire the first shot and then the sands will burn for a long time....saudi arabia and the rest of the muslim world will literally fry . nuclear weapon blasts are snapshots in the universe. islam is about to and will be clicked. wonder how many of them will be smiling and how many will be howling that stupid howl of allah oh no akbar . relax ...the show is just starting .mecca , medina and the full islamic circle has to smashed in a concerted effort. islamic icons have to be smashed to rubble. islam will be outlawed and instant death for following islam has to be law.